You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
While psychoanalysis, as a field of research and study, has always concerned itself with its own growth and has sought new replies to unanswered queries, it would appear that we are now witnessing a different phenomenon. Part of the very web of psychoanalytic treatment, with its emphasis on interpretive intervention, is currently under serious scrutiny.
What is precipitating this trend? Are cultural changes, which create new and different symptoms and character problems, bringing a new and different patient to the therapist's office? 10 Is psychoanalysis emerging from its latency period and feeling revived impulses to create? 6 Perhaps: but it is not the purpose of this paper to examine either the causes or the apparent modifications in the psychoanalytic community. That changes are occurring is quite clear.
One could cite numerous examples in current publications, all suggesting a shift of therapeutic attention to new themes and a unique assumption of a therapeutic role. Instead of interpreting pathological aspects of the patients' maneuvers, various authors have described successful attempts at role playing, mirroring the patients' distortions, joining their resistances, and supporting their defenses. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9
The writer, a young student of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, gradually grew apprehensive and confused as he was exposed to the current contributions suggesting modifications of traditional therapeutic technique. As he heard and read differing treatment procedures from respected supervisors, consultants, and authors, each